No. It is a failure on your part to comprehend the relationship between faith and facts. Is it not you who said "I trust my own understanding of physics?" You further mischaracterize my attitude toward learning as one of deliberate ignorance. But I should expect as much from those who fail to distinguish between immutable fact and reasonable conjecture and then set themselves up as preachers in the classroom.
I don't think so. I think it's the basis of your entire argument.
No. It is a failure on your part to comprehend the relationship between faith and facts. Is it not you who said "I trust my own understanding of physics?". But I should expect as much from those who fail to distinguish between immutable fact and reasonable conjecture and then set themselves up as preachers in the classroom.
If you refuse to acquaint yourself with facts, and in fact ignore or reject them when presented, of course you will be unable to distinguish between facts and conjecture. And if you can't distinguish between faith and facts, of course you won't be able to tell the difference between a teacher and a preacher. And that is your goal; to be able to claim that they are indistinguishable.
Argumentum ad stupidum. The only way you can sustain it is by clinging to your ignorance, or feigned ignorance. You're clearly not stupid; you write literately, make no or very few spelling and grammatical errors, and don't seem particularly ill-informed, except about science. I don't believe ignorance could be that selective. Yours is an assumed and false position.